Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
In linux.debian.legal, Niklas Vainio <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether
> some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely
> because of the license or what kind of changes to the license we could
> suggest to upstream.
> The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html
The Angband team is actively attempting to relicense the software under
the GPL and all recent core contributors have already agreed. The problem
at present, as I understand it, is that no one has been able to get in
touch with one remaining original author, so completing the relicensing
may require replacing fairly large chunks of the core code.
The RFC packages could be replaced for most people by an installer that
downloads the RFCs from an archive or mirror if they want a local copy.
The only people who would then be left out would be people without network
connectivity. (Alternately, they could just be removed from the archive;
it's not particularly hard to get them if wanted.)
Mailman is the obvious replacement to recomment.
Replaced for most applications by lesstif, which is already in main.
If anyone actually cares, I may be able to get this relicensed and am
willing to at least try. I'm mildly surprised that anyone is still using
This is partly replaced by mailpost and/or news2mail (I forget which
direction newsgate goes), included in INN under a better license. A bit
of additional development effort would likely kill newsgate completely;
it's not a very complicated program, particularly when written in a better
programing language for string manipulation than C.
Postfix and Exim are the obvious replacements to recommend.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>